RE: is this right or wrong?

RE: is this right or wrong? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SteelofUtah -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/29/2009 8:10:19 AM)
My Answer is some people do not deserve to live for the choices that they have made. That they lost the right to life in my opinion due to the actions that they made. My Moral Dilemma is that I also do not believe that I should be the one who gets to make that decision. So If someone else does I guess I would say I hope they can live with their actions because someone else does get to because of them. Steel

Termyn8or -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/29/2009 8:48:14 AM)
"Peace is based on the good intentions from both sides " Exactly. OK, my intentions are to make my own way in life, not take from others and not to hurt anyone who has similar intentions. If everyone else shared that viewpoint I would gladly beat my guns into plowshares. Let me know when that happens. Look at your typical house burglar, what are his intentions ? Is he at your fridge stealing food ? Might just have to let that one go. On the other hand if he is looking for money for drugs for example, BOOM. People relinquish morality to others. It may be the church or the government, but others do not. I do not. Nobody should. Now if the good take moral responsibility on their own, there would be less bad to do the same. They drone it into your head how precious life is. I agree, when it comes to those who think that way. But a wrecked life leading to dangerous criminal acts must have consequences. Remove the consequences and you telegraph that you are open game. This crap about "no child left behind" means noone gets ahead no matter how hard they try. Then we have "each according to his needs, and abilities" removes all impetus to be good and do well above board, and leads to this exact problem. I have my reasons for not letting this corrupt judicial system take care of our killing for us. It is you, facing danger who should be doing the killing. The proof is positive, the judgement final and the results are much better. I know, because I have almost never called the cops. Once was to report a wreck on the highway and once because I saw this guy chasing a Woman up and down the streets in cars, stopping here and there to continue their fight. When I got shot I did not want cops. I wanted nothing more than a ride home. What would've happened later is anyone's guess, but the shooter apparently left town. The cops never found him, and neither did "we". I hope he finds someone on his own to do my job. I got shot in the face about an inch below the left eye, this is attempted murder. If I ever find this asshole it will be my turn. Go ahead and trade your rights for safety, in the end you will have neither. Maybe I don't make sense to some people. I deem it brainwashing, but that is my opinion, not so much of an assertion. For example I am not a Christian, but I do admit that if everyone lived by the tenets of Christianity the world would be a near utopia. I'll live that way when everyone else does. But I will never really believe because I will not accept universal forgiveness. I will not accept it for myself, why would I accept it for others ? I don't know what else to say, just agree to disagree. If you don't think killing is justifiable then do not kill. T

popeye1250 -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/29/2009 9:15:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Viridana There is good and bad in every person. And "good" and "bad" can be very complicated concepts depending on the situation at hand. What about sociopaths/ psychopaths? They don't have any capacity for good. I'm reading "The Sociopath Next Door" and they are "human beings" to the point that they are flesh and blood but that's where it ends.

scarlethiney -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/29/2009 7:05:59 PM)
I think it is pretty arrogant to assume that anyone has the right to make that decision or judge the worth of another persons life. If we start deciding that its ok to kill people "we" think are bad, what stops us from redefining that to include people who piss us off, people who do or say something that goes against our preconceived notion of right and wrong, appropriate or inappropriate? "We kill people to show that killing people is wrong", that is without a doubt the most idiotic remark I have ever read.........absolutely a great thing to teach children [8\|], ..............violence is not the answer.

Acer49 -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/29/2009 7:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fadedshadow this is a question somewhat inspired by the boondock saints movie but do you think people who kill bad people are good or bad? why or why not? Regardless of what justification we may feel we have, it is illegal, so therefore it is perceived as bad, about the only exception is if ones life is being threatened

Termyn8or -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/30/2009 1:34:04 AM)
"If we start deciding that its ok to kill people "we" think are bad, what stops us from redefining that to include people who piss us off, people who do or say something that goes against our preconceived notion of right and wrong, appropriate or inappropriate? " Very good question, to which I happen to have an answer. Self control. (don't even start those flame throwers people) I believe homosexuality is wrong. I think it is the wrong choice but it has been pointed out to me that it is not always a choice. But if it is how does it affect me or anyone else when it comes to rights ? I like White girls, I have no desire for Black girls, and some of them look pretty damn good. But it is not my preference. It is not my preference to have rap music beating through my neighborhoopd, but do I go out and shoot people over it ? This has actually happened but it wasn't me. My personal preferences are mine, and when they do not bother anyone else they are none of their business. If I am to afforded the same consideration, this is paramount. Because how can I expect them to support me if I do not support them ? We do need a bit more solidarity in this world. Any leader of today is faced with new problems which did not exist in the past. I am not saying that they are being effectively addressed however. There is one mark of a true leader, who is capable in this day and age, and that is the old principles apply. OK, I think homosexuality is wrong, therefore I am not one. Do I think any less of Hunky because of it, hell no. He has EVERY RIGHT to do what he does. It bothers noone. I am against abortion, being a Man I doubt I will have to get one. But there are plenty of Women out there who need one. If YOU think abortion is wrong, I have the prefect solution, DON'T HAVE ONE. Do you get my drift ? Live and let live, or die, whichever. Take stock of your own morality first, then conquer the world. Once on top, realize that as a leder, you are actually a servant of the People. Yes you read that right, as a leader you are actually a servant of the People. You know you can't please everyone, but even as the most benign and benevolent leader someone has to make the rules. If you get to make those rules, look to the past. Look to the Constitution, except for that three fifths bullshit. Let everyone be and they will be happy to pay the taxes. You will not be greedy and rip them off, times will be great ! And then get the all knowing eye the fuck out of people's lives. Live and let live. I know that the present regime would not understand nor embrace this, to expect otherwise is a pipe dream. But I will say this, if I was King Shit and what I say goes, people would have alot more freedom than they have today. As a leader I have but one responsibility, and that is to lead my "kingdom" to glory and prosperity. And not at another's expense. Our work and dedication makes us what we are, proud and strong. So much for my pipe dream. T

Irishknight -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/30/2009 8:31:41 AM)
If you kill someone in commission of a life threatening crime, absolutely it is okay. If you kill them afterward as retribution then it is not. The death penalty, in my opinion, is a similar issue. If you kill someone who is a danger to society for the protection of society then it is a neccessary evil. I'll even throw the fucking switch. If you kill them as punishment or as a "deterrant" then you are acting out of malice or revenge. A government should never act out of malice or for vengeance. They should always do the utmost in their power to ensure the safety of those they govern. On a personal note, if someone killed my family, I would act out of malice and never regret it. I would willingly go to the electric chair with my head held high knowing that I had taken the SOB off the planet. And, yes, "hawks" do protect the doves. Police have to be willing to draw and use their weapons to protect others. That makes them hawks. They are supposed to begin, when allowed by circumstances, by trying to settle problems with words and talking people down. They have to be willing to follow the escalation of force up the ladder as the people they are dealing with do. If they are unwilling to be "hawks" then they will be at the least ineffective and more likely dead. Here's another example. I can talk politely to trespassers on my property all day long and some will obey the law and get off my property. Others won't give a shit about me or the law. When I talk politely with a double barrel 12 gauge crroked in my arm, they elect for the peaceful solution. Peace has to be backed by the willingness to stand defend it. Take out the "hawks" and the "doves" will be killed off or caged by something else. Take out the "doves" and the "hawks" will not know when to quit fighting and they'll end up destroying themselves. Both have a place in the world and both are neccessary.

blackcat39 -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/31/2009 8:16:33 PM)
scarlethiney = dove Irishknight = sensible hawk I agree with you Irishknight....What I don't like is that more and more people in America are NOT willing to defend AMERICA. We need those who want to do crimes and use weapons against our own CITIZENS to do so against other countries in our armies. Eventually the cowards(doves) will seriously outnumber the hawks(those willing to fight die in wars), and USA will collapse similiar to how Rome collapsed(another republic). We need more hawks, less doves. With regard to this IRAQ war....lets stop the war already. jeez.... Enough Iraqis have died..... ;/ We can always go back in their and bust some more heads if they didn't get the message. ;0

blackcat39 -> RE: is this right or wrong? (10/31/2009 8:21:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fadedshadow this is a question somewhat inspired by the boondock saints movie but do you think people who kill bad people are good or bad? why or why not? problem is that sometimes you are told someone is bad, but being bad is relative. Then you find out your on the wrong side of the moral issue, and are actually killing good people. Now what, suicide? Its best to only kill people who are absolutely evil. Just being bad isn't good enough reason to kill someone unless your own life or family's life is threatened. In times of war, your job is to kill those threatening you also. Even if those trying to kill you are hiding behind innocents......

NihilusZero -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 12:16:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop define bad? 20 Points.

Justme696 -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 12:17:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop define bad? things a person sees as not good lol good morning

Termyn8or -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 12:56:18 AM)
Bad=detrimental to our goals. But we don't even have a common goal these days. OK, so let the punks rape your Grandma every Friday. T

pahunkboy -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 7:52:35 AM)
Well I for one will not rest until we kill every last terrorist on the planet. to preserve our way of life of course. (commentary on endless wars)

mnottertail -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 7:53:30 AM)
so, you aint been sleeping much, hah?

Moonhead -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 8:23:43 AM)
It's a good point, Irishknight, but there's a few cases where the hawks are endangering rather than protecting the doves and themselves. Does anybody believe that the London tube bombings in 2005 would have happened if Blair hadn't got the UK into the invasion of Iraq?

Termyn8or -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 11:39:50 AM)
"Peace has to be backed by the willingness to stand defend it" IK, we might have to check our family tree, we might be related. The old fashioned part of me sees the Paternal side of the family as the main dominant factor, no matter the fact that I come from a broken home. But was it really broken ? We have always treated life as a precious gift, but one that could be relinquished by making the wrong decision, one of which is to fuck with us. I was five years old when my Uncles were teaching my Aunt how to shoot. They insisted she have a gune. Here I am at age five right in the basement with them as she got her target practice. We almost accept death as graciously as we accept life. In this family we all have what it takes to become a warrior or a criminal, just about anything. The difference is tht we were not mistreated in any great way, and we were taught. This was done completely lacking any religion. Consideration for others etc., were to come from us, not some old dusty book. But that doesn't change the fact that in this family there arer literally more guns than people. You see we value our gift of life, and are not about to let some fucking thug take it away. If he's bleeding from the head on my kitchen floor, that is HIS problem, not mine. And as I may haver mentioned before, my problem is getting rid of the carcass. If the cops don't show up, I will tear up a carpet and save the paperwork. My compassion has limits, and it does end at a certain point. If I shoot someone and have to look his Mother in the eye I will do so, and I will say something like "I'm sorry, you should have taught him better than that". He gambled with his life and lost. If he had won he would get the loot, he lost and got the boot, off my planet. This is a difficult subject, not to discuss, but people's views on it are quite cemented and solid. I doubt even I can convince someone that I am right. Sure, after they get robbed and assaulted, but that took them to the edge. Not me. Until and unless faced with REAL danger and indeed fear, the naysayer will never run out of nays. But for some reason this is usually gone when they have a gun to their head. The difference here is that there is no trial needed. He was here, the carcass is proof. I got the right one. There is no doubt. The sole reason I am against execution by the state is because they act so stupid that nobody really knows if they got the right guy. In some cases this "closure" of which the pundits speak results in a murderer or other criminal at large, and not even under suspicion. But if I catch you trying to make off with my safe, there is no doubt whatsoever. They try to brainwash us to not take the law into our own hands, but IMO that is exactly where it belongs. T

Irishknight -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 1:54:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's a good point, Irishknight, but there's a few cases where the hawks are endangering rather than protecting the doves and themselves. Does anybody believe that the London tube bombings in 2005 would have happened if Blair hadn't got the UK into the invasion of Iraq? We are not completely on opposite sides here. A hawk should be protecting his own territory, not invading another's. As for the bombings, I believe they would have happened eventually. Getting involved in Bush's Folly only sped up the terrorists' plans and gave them validation for what they were planning.

Moonhead -> RE: is this right or wrong? (11/1/2009 1:58:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's a good point, Irishknight, but there's a few cases where the hawks are endangering rather than protecting the doves and themselves. Does anybody believe that the London tube bombings in 2005 would have happened if Blair hadn't got the UK into the invasion of Iraq? We are not completely on opposite sides here. A hawk should be protecting his own territory, not invading another's. I hear you. That's most of the trouble in the world in a nutshell, isn't it?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02